Why haven’t they fired Dr Anthony Fauci?
Although Fauci had been given the task of leading America – and by proxy, the world – out of the Covid pandemic, he has done little to help the wider cause of public faith in science.
Fauci’s inconsistent rhetoric has greatly retarded the efforts of those who were trying to combat the virus and has subsequently left the public confused and mistrustful.
Recently, on April 26, Fauci gave an interview with PBS NewsHour, where he said:
‘We are certainly, right now in this country, out of the pandemic phase.’
A day later, after his words had been enthusiastically splashed across national headlines, Fauci flipped on his message, saying that:
‘By no means does that mean the pandemic is over.’
These bafflingly contradictory pronouncements shouldn’t surprise anyone. Fauci’s ability to backflip is Olympic quality and seems to be the most consistent thing about his health approach throughout the pandemic.
For instance, in January 2020, when Covid was new and beginning to worry experts, Fauci said in a radio interview:
‘The American people should not be worried or frightened by [Covid]. It’s a very, very low risk to the United States, but it’s something we, as public health officials, need to take very seriously.’
The virus quickly spread through America as if to spite him. In a March 2020 during a CBS 60 Minutes interview, Fauci went on to say that:
‘There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.’
Just months later, Fauci backflipped again and said everyone should mask up. Astonishingly, he admitted that his initial advice against masking was knowingly false and made due to worries over a mask shortage instead of health reasons.
Shouldn’t he have been fired then and there?
For a physician leading the pandemic response – who had presumably taken the Hippocratic Oath – to intentionally deny people his best medical advice due to a supply issue is highly unethical.
It gets worse. Soon Fauci was telling fully vaccinated people to wear, not one, but two masks. He (unsurprisingly) flipped a short while later and admitted this suggestion was merely theatre, intended not to give mixed signals or dissuade mask-wearing. Fauci assured the public that he – as someone fully vaccinated with two shots – was in fact safe from catching the virus without a mask (or two).
But he was wrong on that also. Vaccine protection was suspected and soon confirmed to wane rapidly. Then, evidence began to accrue that Covid vaccines did not prevent transmission or infection. By November 2021, Fauci had decided that three shots may become the standard for the definition of a ‘full’ vaccination. Four days later, he flipped across the press conference a couple of times, finishing with a statement saying that booster shots were definitely not necessary to be considered ‘fully vaccinated’.
Ironically, having had four shots of the Pfizer vaccine, Fauci still doesn’t feel safe enough to attend the 2022 White House correspondence dinner.
In addition to his uniformly muddled and mendacious public health advice, the public should consider the quality of his work behind the scenes as the Chief Medical Advisor to the President and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Despite going so far as to equate himself to science, Fauci does not appear to like actual science. In late 2020, three professors from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford universities drafted the Great Barrington Declaration, highlighting their concerns about the unintended consequences of blanket lockdowns, which they posited would do more harm than good. They gave their considered reasons and offered less-damaging alternatives. The declaration has been signed by over 60,000 medical experts and researchers from across the world, including a Nobel Laureate. But emails have surfaced showing Dr Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institute of Health (NIH), and Fauci – rather than engaging their peers in a discussion of ideas – had conspired to denigrate the team, calling them ‘fringe epidemiologists’.
The lab-leak theory surrounding Covid’s origin remained controversial, despite significant practical, logical, and hard scientific evidence in its favour. Regardless of whether it turns out to be true or false, Fauci’s behaviour towards exploring Covid’s origin throughout the pandemic remains odd, to say the least. Fauci (and others) set out to quash the theory from its inception and to malign anyone, including respected scientists, who might entertain it. This paints Fauci as a man without scruples.
Fauci’s relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, situated at the heart of the pandemic outbreak and which just so happens to be the largest institute in the world studying bat coronaviruses, is probably an uncomfortable fact. Fauci denied vehemently in the US Senate on May 12, 2021, the charge that the NIH had funded gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Two weeks later, in what may be Fauci’s most serious flip of all, he admitted to ‘modest’ NIH funding of the Wuhan lab, while denying it was for gain-of-function research. No surprises for guessing that the NIH later admitted to funding gain-of-function research in the lab a few months later.
Ordinary people would have been fired long ago for this sort of behaviour. The task of leading the world out of the pandemic mindset is too important to be left to an unreliable man who wields compromised truth.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.